[seqfan] Re: Sequence A055629

franktaw at netscape.net franktaw at netscape.net
Sun Oct 9 21:55:09 CEST 2011

What you ought to do is change the definition of A055629 as suggested, 
and add another sequence which is the runs of exactly n.

Franklin T. Adams-Watters

-----Original Message-----
From: David Wilson <davidwwilson at comcast.net>

On 10/8/2011 3:47 AM, mathstutoring wrote:
> Morning David
> I have just been looking at your sequence A055629 and noticed that
> a(6) and a(7) are the same
> Surely that is not possible with this type of sequence
> If you translate the data into consecutive runs you get 1, 2, 3, 4, 
> 7, 7
> Now whilst you could argue that 7 consecutive runs includes 6, it is
> my understanding that such sequences are not constructed like this 
> that a(6) should represent the first run of exactly six
> consecutive happy numbers and not at least six. Even if a(6)>a(7).
> What do you think
> Ant King (UK)

Let me start by saying this is not "my sequence". It is true that I
authored the sequence some years ago.
However, since a(6) and a(7) are too large to be found by brute force
search, even with aid of a computer,
and because I don't know of a clever way to compute them, I can safely
say that I did not include a(6) and
a(7) in my original submission; these must have been added by someone
else at a later date.

At any rate, you are correct that I could argue that a run of 7 numbers
includes a run of 6 numbers. In fact,
I could, and will, argue that this is the correct mathematical
interpretation. Whereas a non-mathematician
might construe "run of 6 numbers" to mean "run of exactly 6 numbers", a
mathematician would not make
this unstated assumption. The sequence title is "Beginning of first run
of n consecutive happy numbers", not
"Beginning of first run of exactly n consecutive happy numbers", so I
think a(6) = a(7), if correct, is consistent
with the title as a mathematical description.

When you say "it is my understanding that such sequences are not
constructed like this", I take it to mean
that you believe the OEIS uses the term "run of" with the consistent
meaning of "run of exactly".  This is not
the case.  To its credit, many OEIS titles explicitly indicate "run of
at least" (A064708, A077647, A078143)
or "run of exactly" (A049523, A055623, A064709), but some titles that
say only "run of" when they mean
either "run of exactly" (A006558) or "run of at least" (A069561). This
may be an issue of interest to the OEIS
editors, so I will copy them on this reply.

Regarding A055629, I think the best thing to do is to clarify its
definition to

      Beginning of first run of at least n consecutive happy numbers

I agree that this is in some sense unsatisfying, since we would like
A055629 to tell us where the first run of
exactly 6 happy numbers starts. To fix this, we might want to change 
definition to

      Beginning of first run of exactly n consecutive happy numbers

If we do this, the current value of a(6) becomes unknown. OEIS policy
then requires us to truncate
A055629 prior to a(6), so a(6) and a(7) must be removed.  We could
perhaps add a comments that a(6) is
unknown (and may not exist) and that a(7) = 7899999999999959999999996.


Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/


More information about the SeqFan mailing list